So, to mayor or not to mayor.
I say: Not.
We know that every nomination to the USSC is politically driven. It begins with which President makes the nomination, and revolves around whether the candidate will be a strict constructionist, the way Conservatives would have it, or a flaming revisionist, as favored by Liberals.
But beyond that, and much to the chagrin of many Libs, the Supreme Court is supposed to represent blind justice. I emphasize BLIND.
For all those who flunked civics, the Supreme Court is not a representative body of government. And selecting a Justice is not an ethnic popularity contest. It is not about diversity, skin color, gender, race, or any nonsense of the sort. And it is certainly not about legislating (or for those who will jump to correct me, setting "policy", either. Setting judicial "precedent" is far different from setting "policy", which is reserved for the legislature, not the courts.) It is about finding a person with the deepest and truest of intellect. An awe-inspiring mind; not an awe(ful)-inspiring agenda.
For BO, a former professor of Constitutional Law, nominating Sotomayer, a judge who does not appear to stand out within the jurisprudential fabric of the bar, but who is otherwise a woman of Puerto Rican descent, this is not only pathetic pandering and race playing, but an affront to the Constitution to prop up someone who will advance BO's result-oriented, policy-setting, jurisprudence on the highest bench in our land.
Here's one of the more insightful statements she's made about herself:
"[A] wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Really? I dont' remember learning that in law school. That would have made for a terrifically fun class.
She should be kicked off the second circuit for crap like this; not elevated to the Supreme Court. And if she were a white male, and the words reversed, she would be. What hypocrites!
Note to BO: A Supreme Court decision should not be based on the racial, ethnic or gender characteristics of either party before the Court. Nor should it be based on the same characteristics in a Supreme Court justice.
Why?
BECAUSE ALL DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION!
Why?
Because this is the bedrock that forms the basis for our laws and our society. If this is replaced with any changing criteria, such as a judge's personal view based on their heritage or any other crap, or on how a pending decision may appear through the eyes of a particular litigant (which BO says should be taken into account before a decision is handed down), then WE'RE HEADING TOWARD LAWLESSNESS. There will be no predictability, nor stability, in our laws and our society. The law will become tyranny's flavors of the day, which will change with the justices' moods, as well as with the physical characteristics of the litigants before the Court. And anytime a white man goes up against a woman or a person of any color, he'll know that he'll never win with Sotomayor.
The Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!
It's a complete freakin' disaster. We go to the Supreme Court for a decision on where we stand relative to the Constitution; not relative to a Puerto Rican woman, or a black man, or anyone else.
Fortunately, if she's confirmed, one Lib justice will be replaced with another, and the make-up of the Court will not change... this time. But what about next time? With this kind of direction, where are we headed!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The last paragraph is essentially accurate, in that the knee-jerk, corporation-friendly neo-conservative block composed of Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will not be materially affected by confirmation of a Souter sound-alike. But compared to the frightening prospect of a McCain nomination, which would have made the mercurial Kennedy the left's best hope, this nomination allows liberals a sigh of relief.
ReplyDeleteThe next appointment can't come fast enough for me, given this court's propensity to bypass Presidential election process, and void sensible gun laws.
There is a thoughtful analysis of the issue of empathy and the law by Stanley Fish available at the NY Times website [this program won't let me paste in the link for some reason].
The anti-SCOTUS appointment uproar from the right, which, in best Karl Rove fashion, unofficially began several days before Ms. Sotomayor's nomination, has been temporarily abated while the brain trust calculates whether the need to savagely attack anything President Obama does, could in this case, erode their support among the Hispanic community. My sense is that they will go for it, since in their feverish quest for ideological purity, they have lost their political compass, and are thus unable to synthesize a conservative consensus that could contribute constructively to the economic disaster now unfolding around us.
Erode support in the Hispanic community?
ReplyDeleteIf the Hispanic community won't join the American community where this is completely improper, if this is what it takes to get their support, then F'em. I'm not willing to throw this country under a bus for the support of the Hispanic community.
If the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is done for the purpose of gaining support of the Hispanic, or any other community, the nominator and his supporters have gone way off the deep end. Wrong country.
Ideological purity? Political compass? How about, instead, unwavering principles and a compass where North is always up. Of course, the opposite is political prostitution, guided by a weathervane.
A further thought:
ReplyDeleteThis concept of putting a Hispanic on the Court in order to get Hispanic support/buy-in, or the Hispanic vote is so terribly flawed that it doesn't even do Hispanics justice.
What does it say about the American society the Libs think they, the Hispanics, and every other racial group live in? What it says is that we are all a bunch of recalcitrant bigots. That in this country, justice and the Constitution can't be impartially delivered to Hispanics unless it is served to them by a Hispanic.
I find this so patronizing and distasteful. It fosters societal distrust, not peace and cohesion. (What about all other "groups"? They all need their own people, too then.) It insults everyone else who believes they are impartial, no matter their skin color or background.
Here's the kicker: Peace and prosperity comes with knowing that there is stability based on core principles of justice and liberty, regardless of who is in power. These principles find their source in the Constitution. We rely on the Constitution; not the person reading it. What if one day Sotomayor is off the bench? No more Hispanic buy-in into our society?
Furthermore, this ignores independent thought by the Hispanic nominee, and can cut against the Libs. What if the Hispanic rules against Hispanics? Will the Hispanic community still support the Libs who appointed the Hispanic? The Libs don't think so. That's why they'll only support a Hispanic who thinks the way they do, not a Hispanic who thinks. (So maybe in that regard, the Libs also have a feverish quest for their own ideological purity.)
So let's be honest. The Libs will only advance minorities for the Libs' benefit, not for the minorities'. How many of those applauding Sotomayor as a candidate to the Supreme Court and lauding it as a breakthrough for Latinos, supported Bush's choice Miguel Estrada to the DC's appellate court (a lower judicial level, but important, nonetheless). How many of those who pushed for Thurgood Marshall's nomination for Supreme Court Justice supported Clarence Thomas? Not many. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/05/26/DI2009052601093.html
There's nothing laudable about this. It's all ugly politics. The biggest problem is that it's cutting away at the Constitution.
"The anti-SCOTUS appointment uproar from the right, which, in best Karl Rove fashion, unofficially began several days before Ms. Sotomayor's nomination, has been temporarily abated while the brain trust calculates whether the need to savagely attack anything President Obama does, could, in this case, erode their support among the Hispanic community."
ReplyDeleteI think you may see signifigant division here in Republican ranks - Senators with a significant contingent of Hispanic voters will not participate in the character assasinations, and will quietly vote to confirm.
I have to say that I'm disappointed though. I was really hoping that President Obama would re-nominate Harriet Miers.
Peace and prosperity do not come from "knowing there is stability based on core principles of justice and liberty", but from equal access to actual justice and liberty, both here and abroad. I might add that equal access to prosperity is an essential ingredient of peace.
ReplyDeleteThere is much that can gained by having on the Supreme Court, a voice that grew out of difficult circumstances, that realizes the effects of Supreme Court decisions on people wielding less power. This is a refreshing contrast to blind worship of words on a page, or manipulation of the contemporary meaning of 225 year old prose. Does that make me sound like a liberal?
Proposed: When speaking of liberals, I request use of the entire word, rather than the Rushism "libs".
"Peace and prosperity do not come from "knowing there is stability based on core principles of justice and liberty", but from equal access to actual justice and liberty..."
ReplyDeleteOh. So for 225 years we have not had peace and prosperity in this country. That's what we're striving for now, and something only a Latino/minority on the Supreme Court can provide.
"[E]qual access to prosperity [code for wealth redistribution] is an essential ingredient", OF COMMUNISM.
"...blind worship of words on a page, or manipulation of the contemporary meaning of 225 year old prose."
Alrighty, then! Hey, throw those Bibles, Torahs and Korans out the window. They're ancient!
"Does that make me sound like a liberal?"
You bet! Flaming, even. :)
Proposed: When referring to conservatives, I request refraining from characterizations such as "Rushism" or "in best Karl Rove fashion".
"So for 225 years we have not had peace and prosperity in this country."
ReplyDeleteThere have been periods of prosperity, and of scarcity. The swings have typically been much greater following greedy and irresponsible activities which generated unsustainable levels of prosperity - speculative trading in the 1920's that led to the great depression; bizarre financial constructs over the past 20 years that has landed us in this one.
"[E]qual access to prosperity [code for wealth redistribution] is an essential ingredient", OF COMMUNISM."
Our country has seen the greatest redistribution of wealth in its history during the Clinton/GW Bush years - the wealth ever rising to the most wealthy. I don't get the connection you make to COMMUNISM, but part of the solution to emerging from our current depression is getting more money, or wealth if you will, into the wallets of the less affluent.
"Alrighty, then! Hey, throw those Bibles, Torahs and Korans out the window. They're ancient!"
The problem is not in the age of the texts, but in the "blind worship" of their content. It's interesting that the examples you list have all been used at times as weapons by crafty manipulators in the same way our constitution has. If we ourselves are not able and ready to read and discern useful moral and human imperatives from those documents, then yes, they should be tossed out.
"You bet! Flaming, even. :)"
Thanks for the :)!